There is an obligation to make a claim for asylum in the first safe country in which a refugee arrives. France is a safe country. What duty can fall on us to accept a claim for asylum from somebody arriving from France?

Clearly in practice there is a huge difficulty in simply returning arrivees to France, but I find it difficult to understand how we end up in the legal quagmire now apparent.

The current arrangement with France is one whereby we are allowed to send across our staff to consider applications. I assume that the benefit (to us) of this is that upon rejection we have no obligation to take an applicant it. But does that make the slightest difference to whether someone makes the attempt to get across.

None of this has any connection with the issue of whether we should be taking more refugees and how many. I do believe that we should be taking more. The government's 'target' for net immigration is wrong headed, and should be abandoned. It is unachievable and unhelpful.

I think there's a lot of truth in the suggestion that this has more to do with French internal politics than anything else. It plays to the strand of French public opinion that believes we're not pulling our weight. It is suggested that our current arrangement allows us to use France as an offshore refugee camp.

On a practical level also, the current arrangements mean that anyone at Calais who wishes to make an asylum claim here* has to physically get here. It's those attempts to get here that are causing disruption in that area of France, and putting lives at risk. If we were able to deal with those applications on French soil, it's suggested that they'd not attempt the journey.

*The reasons why they want to come here are complex, but it's worth noting that they form a small minority of people who've sought refuge in Europe.

I agree, I see no reason why the French police cannot ascertain an individual's right to live in France and if they have none or are unwilling to claim asylum - deport them. These camps exist, because France is not checking if the people in the camps have a right to be there. Presumably they turn a blind eye, because they themselves do not want to process the application.

These camps exist, because France is not checking if the people in the camps have a right to be there. Presumably they turn a blind eye, because they themselves do not want to process the application.

Not quite. It is because once within the Schengen area, there is in no effective limit on travel. It is at the edges of that area - Calais - that the hurdle arises. It is not France's fault - I suspect that few of those at Calais first entered the Schengen area in France, and they inherit the problem from those (poorer) countries which have failed understandably to control illegal entry and onward passage without seeking registration and processing asylum applications.

It is a weakness or contradiction inherent in the Schengen arrangement. WE did not sign up to it. The French did.

Given its compulsory to carry ID in France - I still don't get why the 9,000 people cannot be asked to provide ID and prove they have a right to be in France. At that point if they are to claim asylum, they must do so or face deportation back to their country of origin. It would be neighborly for us to assist with some of these costs, which I understood we'd done in terms of security.

I must admit I don't get why calais has such a problem and dieppe for example doesn't. Maybe its because there isn't a camp?

The furthest they could be deported is back to the country they entered France from: somewhere else in the Schengen area. There's no point in that. We're talking about a fluid population here, so it's not as straightforward as it may appear. It's also fair to say the French authorities are highly reluctant to break the camp up and adopt a more confrontational approach. Much better to have them all in one place.

They mostly go to Calais for the same reasons as everyone else does: because the journey to the UK is better. But there is, in fact, a migrant camp in Dieppe.

As a person who was ejected from Chile as a young child, I have never felt any form of patriotism or any 'love' of this country or any another. I feel that I am truly a citizen of Terra, belonging to no country in particular.

Every tribe, race (in the sense of culture) and country have something to offer in terms of wisdom, knowledge and love. I look forward to a future with no national boundaries and where we are free to come and go as we please.

The furthest they could be deported is back to the country they entered France from: somewhere else in the Schengen area. There's no point in that.

Again then it comes to France in effect resenting our rejection of Schengen. The problem in this particular form is a direct result of Schengen. Had there been no Schengen, the refugees would not have 'escaped' Italy or Greece or . .

To say this is not to say that we should not take a proper and generous part in accepting refugees. We have not yet done so. Equally that does not mean taking in refugees from Calais.

Schengen was bound to lead to serious problems eventually. It was, like most of what the EU does, unnecessary - another ill-conceived, cack-handed creation of those champagne socialist clowns in Brussels. and their absurd notion of a European Superstate. With 28 different countries in the EU, and I think it's 24 different languages amongst them, anyone with more than a quarter of a brain could see that Schengen was never a sensible or logical agreement to make.

As to true "refugees" - they seek refuge in the first country they arrive in. They cease to be true refugees once they cross another border.

It is my understanding that the arrangements which were agreed between the UK and France regarding checks for entry into the UK being carried out in Calais had nothing whatsoever to do with the EU per se, but were simply a sensible practical agreement between the UK and France. Thank heavens the UK had the sense to decline to sign into Schengen.

Schengen in Luxembourg is a nice place - I've been there a couple of times. The idiots who signed that agreement prob\ably went there for a nice fully-expensed jolly, and no doubt enjoyed themselves there.